Planning and Developing Trails and Routes - Tourism and Trails: Cultural, Ecological and Management Issues - page 200

Case Study: Trail Hardening in Acadia
National Park ( Continued )
within two sites (Jordan Pond (JP) on Mount Desert Island (MDI) and
Little Moose Island (LMI) off Schoodic Peninsula) within Acadia National
Park, USA. The park's trail system is popular among hikers and cyclists.
MDI has a long history of path development with 160 km of trails, hard-
ened rock steps, gravel, paving, bridges and wood planks. Parts of MDI are
recognized as high-intensity visitor spaces. In contrast, LMI is a small,
remote island that receives fewer visitors. There has been little done there
by way of visitor support facilities or other related developments. There
are no designated or signed trails, only informal visitor-created trails.
Cahill et al. (2008: 234) examined the opinions of visitors on 'acceptable
trail development options in divergent recreation settings when faced with
concomitant trade-offs for differing levels of environmental quality, visita-
tion and encounters with others'. They undertook a stated choice survey
at both sites in 2002, in which some 400 respondents were offered dif-
ferent hypothetical recreation conditions and encounter levels (see Table
6.6 ) along with possible levels of management regimentation. Combined,
there were 256 different options that respondents could evaluate.
The study found that the most visitors preferred little to no restric-
tions on public access with fewer encounters with other recreationists,
trails that have not been widened and no secondary trails. There was
some variation in responses between the two sites. Respondents at JP
(extensive trail developments) were more amenable to trail development,
including slight widening with the uses of wood planking, or no widen-
ing but hardening with gravel. In comparison, respondents at LMI pre-
ferred more natural hardening measures such as the use of stepping
stones, or keeping trails in more primitive conditions.
Two management scenarios were suggested: (1) maximizing solitude
and naturalness along the trail system by restricting access and having
minimal levels of trail development; and (2) maximizing resource pro-
tection and ensuring access for all types of visitors, by linking unlimited
access opportunities with the highest level of trail development (harden-
ing). Table 6.7 shows a summary of the preferences of visitors at both
sites with respect to both scenarios.
Respondents at LMI, a low-use and low-development setting, favored
the scenario that emphasizes solitude and keeping the setting as natural
as is possible by employing minimalist management strategies: restricted
access and few amendments. In contrast, respondents at JP, a high-use
and well-developed trail environment, favor the second scenario because
it offers access for all abilities by allowing the highest level of trail devel-
opment possible. They accept tolerance for higher levels of physical trail